Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Lantern writing to me for debt not on credit file


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1876 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Well Jan '19 has come and gone. If the DCA haven't issued a claimform in time for their own stated SB deadline then they have shot themselves in the foot. :)

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Jan '19 has come and gone. If the DCA haven't issued a claimform in time for their own stated SB deadline then they have shot themselves in the foot. :)

 

Perhaps so.

 

It depends if this is the remedy date of the Section 87 notice. If the DN notice has a later remedy date, then the SB period will still be running.

 

There is something going on here, this is the third case I have seen like this in as many weeks.

Under the law as it now stands, a credit or auxiliary company can now delay the sending of a section 87until hell freezes over, without breaking any law or convention .

Some who issue the default notices at the same time as markers, can and do, issue markers at any time in accordance with the section 87.

 

This gives the DCA much more leverage when it comes to enforcement.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posts moved to your own thread....

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have received a letter from Lantern to a sb letter I sent them. The letter talks about one debt from Wageday which it says will be statute barred in January 2019. The customer reference number on the letter has a balance for multiple debts but only the wageday debt is mentioned in the letter.

 

The letter says:

'

Dear xxxx

 

We write with regard to the above reference account number and recent communication.

 

We note that you feel the Wageday Advance account should now be statute barred under the (Limitation Act 1980/Prescription and Limitation Scotland Act 1973/The limitation (Northern Ireland) order 1989). Firstly it is important to explain that an account only becomes statute barred if the last written acknowledgment or payment towards the debt is over a six year period. In this case , the original due date was on xxxx/2013 and will therefor not become statute barred until xx/01/2019.

 

If you have an queries or need to talk to us, please get in touch.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Lantern

Debt Purchase & Recovery Specialists '

 

 

The debts that the customer reference number refers to have not been on my credit file for several years. Ihave not responded to the letter.

 

Will Lantern now put the Wageday account on my credit file and keep it on file for the next six years?

 

Can Lantern use their letter as an opportunity to open up other debts which they have not mentioned in the letter but which I know have been included in the total debt of the balance.? ( I think the debts that have not been mentioned are statute barred).

 

 

Thanking you in advance and as always.

 

This is very important to the OP.

 

If the date mentioned on here is the date on a Default notice, this account will NOT be statute barred. The six year commences on the Default notice date.

If, as I expect this post is deleted I advise you to ring "CAB or "National Debt line" and ask them, before going any further.

 

I have no idea why the team are saying this, perhaps they are confusing me for someone who makes errors on simple matters such as this.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

well the op never returned...and..

 

if the debt buyer say its sb 'd in jan ….its now feb...so by their own placard ..its sb'd now..

end of the matter..

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When was the case I have quoted DX? This is a Current issue? That is why I posted it, it should not be ignored, just because you do not like to read the new cases or legislation.

 

 

If you think I am wrong, lets hear why. Otherwise advise the member correctly.

 

 

As said before and confirmed this morning by NDL there is a lot of changing of enforcement methods happening because of this. You will see them in the next few months.

 

 

I have no issue with you or anyone else, it is merely information I am passing on, the same is available elsewhere.

Edited by Andyorch
Unnecessary quote

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will explain the whole situation in context the BMW and the current judgement if you wish, but after the debacle last time, I thought the ADNIN would object.

Edited by Andyorch
Unnecessary quote

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...